GET THE APP
Thursday, October 30, 2025

Category: Politics
June 4, 2025
William Upton
Politics

EXPLAINED: The Fate of Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Now Rests With This Unelected Senate Official.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is set to evaluate the House-passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” for compliance with Senate rules under the Byrd Rule.

👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD).

📍 Where & When: U.S. Senate, June 2025.

⚠️ Impact: Key provisions of Trump’s bill, including those limiting federal court powers and restricting Medicaid funds for abortion clinics, could be struck down, potentially weakening the legislation.

IN FULL:

President Donald J. Trump‘s budget reconciliation bill, which implements and funds a large part of the America First leader’s second-term agenda, is beginning to work its way through the United States Senate. However, the legislation, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” will face its most perilous test from one of the Senate’s non-elected officials—Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough.

Serving as the Senate Parliamentarian since 2o12, MacDonough will be tasked with evaluating a bevy of points-of-order raised by Senate Democrats and other opponents of the bill, including Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). These points of order will challenge the legislation’s key provisions on several factors that could disqualify their inclusion, including whether the provision reduces non-discretionary (mandatory) spending, increases the deficit after the 10-year budget window, or if a policy provision is nongermine to the budget change.

The budget reconciliation process gives the Senate Parliamentarian tremendous power over legislation, despite being an unelected official. While the presiding officer of the Senate—technically the Vice President, but in practice usually the Senate Majority Leader—can override any ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian, such instances are beyond rare. The most notable occurrence was in 1975, when Vice President Nelson Rockefeller attempted to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian regarding Senate procedural rules. This led both the Republican and Democrat leaders in the Senate to hold an emergency meeting, create a compromise ruling, and circumvent Rockefeller so as to avoid setting any concrete precedent of the presiding officer actually overruling the Senate Parliamentarian.

WHO IS MACDONOUGH?

Senate Parliamentarians are almost always selected from the Office of the Parliamentarian to ensure continuity. The office itself was only created in 1935. The current Senator, Elizabeth MacDonough, has served since 2012, when she was elevated to the role by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Despite being appointed by Reid, MacDonough has been critical of the late Nevada Democrat’s 2013 decision to use a procedural maneuver to alter Senate rules and use the so-called “nuclear option” to abolish the filibuster for lower federal court nominations. MacDonough, along with Republican Senators at the time, warned that setting the precedent could later be used to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations—a prediction which came to pass in 2017.

MacDonough has received high praise from Senators on both sides of the aisle but has repeatedly drawn the ire of progressive Democrats by ruling against some of their more far-reaching policy changes that they’ve tried to include in past reconciliation bills. The Senate Parliamentarian’s rulings on former President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan—a reconciliation bill—saw House progressives, including Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), demand that MacDonough be fired. Notably, MacDonough ruled against the inclusion of a $15 an hour minimum wage provision, and most significantly, determined that the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the legislation violated the Byrd Rule, stating, “changing the law to clear the way to (Legal Permanent Resident) status is tremendous and enduring policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact.”

OVERRULE OR FIRE? 

While Senate Republicans currently insist they will not resort to extreme measures should McDonough rule against provisions in the reconciliation bill, they’ve already used a procedural move last month to prevent the Senate Parliamentarian from ruling on a separate piece of legislation. In May, the Senate overturned California’s electric vehicle mandates using a series of procedural votes and then an expedited final vote under the Congressional Review Act, effectively ending the debate and holding a final vote before the Senate Parliamentarian could rule on the matter. While this end-around maneuver worked for a single subject and relatively uncomplicated measure, such a procedural move will not work with the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.”

Regarding the reconciliation bill, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has insisted, “We’re not going there,” when asked whether he or any other Republican acting as the presiding chair would overrule determinations made by the Senate Parliamentarian under the Byrd Rule. In essence, the Senate Republicans appear to be signaling that they will not overturn past precedent nor use any controversial procedural measures to reduce McDonough’s role in the process.

However, two wrinkles could change the current state of affairs. Namely, the constitutional presiding officer of the United States Senate is actually Vice President J.D. Vance. Should Vance decide to arrive at the Senate and assume his constitutional role, there is not much Sen. Thune or other members can do to prevent him from overruling the Senate Parliamentarian, outside of holding a vote to override the Vice President’s decision. This scenario would be similar to the 1975 legislative involving then-Vice President Rockefeller.

Secondly, if MacDonough’s rulings are seen by Sen. Thune or the Senate Republicans as a whole as being too far afield, we could see a situation like 2001 when then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) fired then-Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove over a series of rulings against Republicans on reconciliation and other budget measures. While Thune might not be willing to overrule MacDonough directly, should the Senate Parliamentarian act too partisan with her Byrd Rule determinations, the Senate Majority Leader is well within his right to fire her.

Image by Ron Cogswell.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
June 4, 2025
Politics

Alan Dershowitz Releases ‘Magnum Opus,’ Worries It May Go Unread.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Alan Dershowitz has released a new book, The Preventive State, which he calls his “magnum opus,” addressing the balance between liberty and security in preventive actions by the state.

👥 Who’s Involved: Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, known for defending high-profile clients and controversial cases.

📍 Where & When: Released in 2025, the book reflects his 60-year career and lifetime of legal scholarship.

💬 Key Quote: “There’s no free lunch, and every time we act to prevent great harms, we take away a little liberty. The key is to make the trade-off based on principles,” Dershowitz said.

⚠️ Impact: Dershowitz hopes the book will influence legislators and courts but fears it may face neglect due to his defense of Donald J. Trump, which he says has led to professional and social ostracism.

IN FULL:

Alan Dershowitz, one of America’s most renowned legal scholars, has released what he describes as his career-defining work, The Preventive State: The Challenge of Preventing Serious Harms While Preserving Essential Liberties. The book, which he calls his “magnum opus,” seeks to address the complex trade-offs between liberty and security in preventive state actions.

Dershowitz, who became the youngest tenured professor at Harvard Law School at age 28, has spent decades exploring the concept of prevention in law, a term he says he first coined in the 1960s. Speaking with the New York Post, Dershowitz stated, “There’s no free lunch, and every time we act to prevent great harms, we take away a little liberty. The key is to make the trade-off based on principles.”

The book delves into contentious issues, such as pretrial detentions, deportations, and public health mandates, aiming to establish a jurisprudence that errs on the side of liberty while giving due weight to security concerns. “Why do we deport people? To prevent them from committing crimes. Why do we lock people up pending trial? To prevent them from fleeing or committing crimes,” Dershowitz explained.

Despite the book’s significance, Dershowitz fears it may be overlooked due to his defense of President Donald J. Trump during his first impeachment trial. Once a celebrated figure in liberal circles, Dershowitz has faced professional and social ostracism since taking on Trump’s case. Institutions like The New York Times, which previously reviewed many of his 57 books, have declined to cover his latest work.

Dershowitz’s defense of Trump has also led to personal fallout, including strained relationships with former colleagues and friends. He revealed that venues such as the 92nd Street Y and his synagogue on Martha’s Vineyard have barred him from speaking, prompting him to establish a new congregation.

At 86, Dershowitz hopes The Preventive State will influence lawmakers and courts, stating, “If I’m going to be remembered 50 years from now, it’s going to be because of this book.”

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
June 4, 2025
Politics

Democrat Criticized for Using ‘Ortiz’ Name to Woo Hispanic Voters.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Gina Jones, a Democrat running for Mayor of San Antonio, is being accused of using her mother’s maiden name, Ortiz, to appeal to Hispanic voters. Jones’s mother is of Filipino origin, and her father is white.

👥 Who’s Involved: Gina Jones, her Republican opponent Rolando Pablos, and campaign representatives on both sides.

📍 Where & When: San Antonio, Texas, during the mayoral race leading up to the June 7, 2025, election.

💬 Key Quote: “Gina Jones was Gina Jones until she wasn’t,” said Rolando Pablos in a campaign ad.

⚠️ Impact: The controversy has intensified the race, with Republicans alleging pandering and Democrats calling the criticisms racist.

IN FULL:

San Antonio’s mayoral race has taken a contentious turn as Reupublican candidate Rolando Pablos is accusing his Democratic rival, Gina Jones, of using her mother’s maiden name, Ortiz, to appeal to the city’s Hispanic voters. Jones, who is of Filipino descent, began using the name in 2017 during her first congressional campaign, a move seen by many as politically motivated and an inappropriate attempt to appeal to racial affinity with a key voting demographic.

Pablos, born in Mexico and a former Texas Secretary of State, is currently airing a campaign ad ahead of the June 7 mayoral election, stating, “Gina Jones was Gina Jones until she wasn’t,” accusing Jones of adopting the Ortiz name strategically to garner Hispanic support. San Antonio, the seventh-largest city in the U.S., is home to nearly one million Hispanic residents, making the demographic a significant voting bloc.

Jones’s campaign has pushed back, asserting that “Ortiz” is her legal middle name and reflects her heritage. Campaign consultant Mary Kate Hull explained, “It’s tradition for Filipino children to take their mother’s maiden name as their middle name.” Hull also noted that Ortiz Jones has embraced her heritage more as an adult.

Despite the Jones campaign’s claims, her high school yearbook lists her name as Gina Maria Jones, as does the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where she served as a national security fellow from 2016 to 2017. Pablos’ campaign says Jones is just pandering, stating, “At home in Washington, D.C., she goes by Gina Jones. While pandering for votes in Texas, she’s Gina Ortiz Jones.”

Notably, Jones herself claims the allegations that she changed her middle name to Ortiz to appeal to Hispanic voters are motivated by racism. “Do you not think it’s racist?” she has said in response to the Pablos campaign’s claims. Jordan Abelson, Jones’ campaign manager, goes further, arguing: “Antagonizing someone on their race is the definition of racism.”

Jones has twice run unsuccessfully for Congress, losing races to Will Hurd in 2018 and Tony Gonzales in 2020.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
June 4, 2025
Culture
Politics

Hegseth Directs Navy to Rename Ship Previously Honoring Harvey Milk.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the U.S. Navy to rename the oiler ship USNS Harvey Milk, originally named after gay rights activist Harvey Milk, who had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old runaway boy while he was in his thirties.

👥 Who’s Involved: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and the late Harvey Milk.

📍 Where & When: The renaming order was issued at the start of Pride Month in June of 2025, affecting a ship named in 2016 during a San Francisco ceremony.

⚠️ Impact: The decision has sparked criticism from Democratic leaders, but draws attention to Milk’s controversial relationship with underage boy Jack Galen McKinley. 

IN FULL:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has directed the U.S. Navy to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, a ship named in honor of the late gay rights activist and politician. The order, issued at the start of Pride Month, was revealed through a memorandum issued by the Department of Defense (DoD).

The USNS Harvey Milk was named in 2016 during a ceremony in San Francisco. Milk, a Navy veteran, became the first openly gay elected official in California in 1977, serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors before being assassinated in 1978. However, Milk also had a sexual relationship with an underage runaway, Jack Galen McKinley, while he was in his thirties, which has led many conservatives to challenge the status he has been awarded as a civil rights hero.

This renaming initiative is reportedly part of Hegseth’s broader efforts to “reestablish the warrior culture” within the military. Since assuming his role, Hegseth has worked to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, aiming to restore what he refers to as the “warrior ethos.”

In addition to the USNS Harvey Milk, other ships on a Navy renaming recommendation list include the USNS Thurgood Marshall, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg, USNS Harriet Tubman, USNS Dolores Huerta, USNS Lucy Stone, USNS Cesar Chavez, and USNS Medgar Evers.

The decision has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic leaders. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) condemned the move, stating, “The reported decision by the Trump Administration to change the names of the USNS Harvey Milk and other ships in the John Lewis-class is a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also expressed outrage, calling the renaming “disgusting, blatant discrimination—and during Pride Month to boot.” He added that Milk “served the U.S. Navy and his country honorably, and he was assassinated while serving the public and fighting for LGBTQ+ rights.”

Schumer did not reference Milk’s unlawful relations with McKinley.

Jack Montgomery contributed to this report.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
June 3, 2025
William Upton
Politics

MTG Under Fire for Admitting She Voted for the Big, Beautiful Bill Without Reading It.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) admitted she did not read President Donald J. Trump’s budget reconciliation bill before voting for it and would have opposed it had she known about an AI-related provision. The Georgia Republican also appears not to understand the purpose of the ban on state-level AI regulation, a provision likely intended to prevent Democrat state lawmakers in California from setting regulatory standards for the whole country.

👥 Who’s Involved: Marjorie Taylor Greene, President Trump, national Democratic lawmakers, including Eric Swalwell, Ted Lieu, Mark Pocan, Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA), and the California state legislature.

📍 Where & When: U.S. House of Representatives; Greene’s admission was posted on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday, June 3, 2025.

💬 Key Quote: “Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,” Greene wrote on X.

⚠️ Impact: Critics contend that the AI provision would block states from regulating AI systems for a decade, potentially nullifying existing state laws. However, Greene also seems unaware that the provision is actually an assertion of federal authority over AI regulation, meant to effectively prevent far-left state-level Democrats in California from dictating AI regulatory policy for the whole country.

IN FULL:

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has acknowledged that she did not thoroughly read President Donald J. Trump‘s tax and spending bill, dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB), before voting in favor of it. Greene admitted she was unaware of a provision in the bill that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI) systems for 10 years.

Posting on X, Greene wrote, “Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years. I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.”

The AI provision, added just two days before the markup, would prohibit state and local governments from enacting laws or regulations targeting AI models, facial recognition systems, and other automated decision tools. While critics make over-the-top claims that the provision removes safeguards or is an infringement on state rights, the section appears more aimed at preventing California from setting AI regulatory standards for the entire country.

Most technology companies working on AI development are either located in California or have a nexus to the state, meaning far-left Democrats in Sacramento can enact regulation directly on most of the industry. Additionally, as has happened with other industries, when California passes sweeping regulatory standards, companies in that sector will often change their policies nationwide to comply with California law rather than creating policies and adjusting consumer or user experiences for Californians alone. Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) has already signed several new laws regulating AI.

Under the former Biden government, the lack of federal intervention allowed California to set emissions standards for the automotive industry and regulations on electric vehicles. The provision that Greene didn’t read in Trump’s budget reconciliation bill would prevent the very situation that the Trump White House had to correct by intervening against California on emissions standards.

Notably, Democratic lawmakers, who unanimously opposed the bill, responded sharply to Greene’s admission. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) posted, “You have one job. To. Read. The. F***ing. Bill.” Similarly, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) noted that he had read the provision and cited it as a reason for his opposition, advising, “PRO TIP: It’s helpful to read stuff before voting on it.”

As it is currently written, the AI provision is unlikely to survive the Byrd Rule in the U.S. Senate, though some lawmakers say they are working to alter the section to be Byrd Rule compliant.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
June 3, 2025
News
Politics

The Dutch Govt Has Collapsed Over Migration. Here’s Why…

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Geert Wilders, leader of the populist Freedom Party (PVV), withdrew his party from the governing coalition in the Netherlands, collapsing the government.

👥 Who’s Involved: Geert Wilders (PVV), Prime Minister Dick Schoof, center-right VVD leader Dilan Yesilgoz, Deputy Prime Minister Mona Keijzer of the  Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB).

📍 Where & When: Netherlands, coalition collapsed after less than a year in office, starting July 2024.

💬 Key Quote: “No signature for our asylum plans. PVV leaves the coalition,” said Geert Wilders on X.

⚠️ Impact: Snap elections are expected, with asylum and immigration likely to dominate campaigns.

IN FULL:

The Dutch governing coalition has collapsed after populist leader Geert Wilders withdrew his Freedom Party (PVV) over disagreements on immigration policy. The coalition, which had been in power for less than a year, fell apart following Wilders’ demand for stricter asylum measures, including freezing applications and limiting chain migration, a.k.a “family reunification.”

Prime Minister Dick Schoof reportedly made a last-minute appeal to coalition leaders on Tuesday morning, but the meeting ended after just one minute when Wilders walked out. Wilders later posted on X, “No signature for our asylum plans. PVV leaves the coalition.”

The coalition, formed in July 2024 after lengthy negotiations, included Wilders’ PVV, the notionally conservative but largely liberal VVD, the upstart Farmers‘ Citizen Movement (BBB), and the marginally center-right New Social Contract.

VVD leader Dilan Yesilgoz called Wilders’s decision “super irresponsible,” while Deputy Prime Minister Mona Keijzer of the BBB accused Wilders of “betraying the Netherlands.” However, with PVV being the most successful party in the last Dutch election, many will argue it was incumbent on Wilders’s coalition partners to defer to him on his key issues of asylum and immigration.

The fallout has sparked speculation about snap elections, which could occur this autumn. Analysts suggest that Wilders will likely center his campaign on immigration issues. Wilders and the PVV came first in last year’s national elections, and polling suggests that the PVV remains ahead.

Prime Minister Schoof is expected to offer the cabinet’s resignation to King Willem-Alexander. While Schoof could attempt to lead a minority government, forming alliances with left-wing opposition parties is seen as unlikely. Leftist Labour-Green alliance leader Frans Timmermans, a former top European Union (EU) official, has already called for fresh elections.

Image by Roel Wijnants.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
June 2, 2025
News
Politics

DATA: Trump-Era GOP Set to Overtake Democrats as ‘Party of the Middle Class.’

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Polling by CNN revealed the Republican and Democratic parties are now nearly tied in being seen as the “party of the middle class.”

👥 Who’s Involved: The poll surveyed 2,028 American adults and was conducted by SSRS for CNN.

📍 Where & When: Conducted between May 5 and May 26, 2023, across the United States.

💬 Key Quote: CNN’s Harry Enten stated, “This, I think, speaks to Democratic ills more than anything else. They have traditionally been the party of the middle class. No more.”

⚠️ Impact: The Democratic Party’s historic lead in this area has narrowed significantly, with more Americans now associating the Republican Party with leadership, change, and effectiveness under President Donald J. Trump.

IN FULL:

A new poll shows that Americans increasingly see the Republicans under President Donald J. Trump as best representing the middle class. The survey, conducted between May 5 and May 26, found that 34 percent of respondents identified the Democratic Party as the “party of the middle class,” while 32 percent said the same of the Republican Party. The poll surveyed 2,028 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of 2.7 percent.

The findings reveal a dramatic shift from past decades. In 1989, the Democratic Party held a 23-point lead over Republicans in being seen as the party of the middle class. CNN Analyst Harry Enten commented on the results, saying, “This, I think, speaks to Democratic ills more than anything else. They have traditionally been the party of the middle class. No more. Donald Trump and the Republican Party have taken that mantle away.”

The poll also highlighted Americans’ broader perceptions of the two major parties. Forty percent of respondents said the Republican Party is the party of “strong leaders,” compared to just 16 percent who said the same for the Democrats. When asked which party represents “change,” 32 percent pointed to the GOP, while 25 percent chose the Democrats. On the question of which party “can get things done,” 36 percent favored the Republicans, compared to 19 percent for the Democrats.

President Trump and the MAGA movement have shifted U.S. politics significantly, with traditional Democrat groups like Latinos voting more and more for Trump and Trump-backed candidates. Florida’s Miami-Dade, once a bastion of Democratic support, is now majority Republican, largely thanks to shifting voting patterns among Latinos.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
June 2, 2025
Christopher Tomlinson
Politics

This Democrat Senator Thinks Trump is Right on the Middle East.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: U.S. Senator John Fetterman has broken ranks with fellow Democrats, praising President Donald J. Trump for scrapping the old Iran nuclear deal.

👤Who’s Involved: Senator John Fetterman (D-PA), President Donald J. Trump, Democrats, Iran.

🧾Key Quote: “I really do think, now, Trump did the right thing to break that agreement,” said Senator Fetterman.

📌Significance: Fetterman continues to rebuff Democrats on Middle East issues, particularly emphasising his pro-Israel stance amid a massive wave of pro-Palestine activism among the left.

IN FULL:

Democrat Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) has praised President Donald J. Trump’s Middle East policies, saying the Republican president was right to scrap the Obama-Biden Iran deal and push for a new agreement placing greater restrictions on the Islamist nation’s ability to enrich uranium. Notably, Fetterman’s comments put him at odds with most of his fellow Democrats, a fact he openly admits.

“I wasn’t really allowed to disagree, politically, with the original agreement on Iran,” Fetterman said during a panel discussion alongside Senator Dave McCormick (R-PA) on June 2. “I really do think, now, Trump did the right thing to break that agreement,” he added.

President Trump scrapped the Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions on the Islamic Republic during his first term in office. Known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iran deal was seen by critics as overly weak on enforcement and would likely do little to prevent the country from developing a nuclear weapons program. While former President Joe Biden did not entirely reinstate he agreement, his government lifted sanctions on Iran and essentially allowed its nuclear program to continue unabated.

After retaking the White House in 2024, President Trump announced he would be reinstating maximum pressure on Iran with aggressive sanctions aimed at the country’s oil industry. However, Trump has also been clear that he would seek a new agreement with Iran to end its nuclear weapons development and subject the country to stringent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight. In March, President Trump told the Iranians they must negotiate a new nuclear deal with the United States or face consequences. “The other alternative [to negotiations] is we have to do something,” he said, suggesting the possibility of U.S.-backed strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Senator Fetterman’s comments are not unusual for him, as he has taken a pro-Israel stance since the October 7 massacres by the terrorist group Hamas, which provoked the current conflict in Gaza. Fetterman has also backed, at least in part, Trump’s efforts to reshore American jobs and was the first Democrat to meet with the America First leader following the 2024 election.

Following the January meeting at Mar-a-Lago, Trump called Fetterman “fascinating” and said, “He’s a commonsense person. He’s not liberal or conservative. He’s just a commonsense person, which is beautiful.”

Fetterman is not the only figure on the left to praise Trump’s policies. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the former far-left presidential candidate, surprisingly praised the Trump administration’s border policies.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
May 30, 2025
Immigration
Politics

DHS Cracks Down on 500 Sanctuary Cities for Impeding Deportation Efforts.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a list of 500 sanctuary jurisdictions it says are obstructing federal immigration enforcement.

👥 Who’s Involved: DHS, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the Trump administration, sanctuary cities, counties, and states.

📍 Where & When: Across the U.S.; list released Thursday, May 29, 2025.

💬 Key Quote: “These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens,” said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

⚠️ Impact: DHS claims sanctuary policies endanger communities and law enforcement while protecting illegal immigrants accused of criminal activity.

IN FULL:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has released a list of 500 sanctuary jurisdictions it accuses of obstructing federal immigration enforcement efforts under the Trump administration. The list, published Thursday on the department’s website, includes cities, counties, and states across the United States.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem criticized sanctuary city policies, stating, “These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens.” The DHS alleges that such jurisdictions shield individuals in the country illegally from federal immigration authorities, creating risks for both communities and law enforcement.

The department explained that the list was compiled based on several factors, including whether jurisdictions identify themselves as sanctuary areas, their compliance level with federal immigration enforcement, restrictions on sharing information with immigration authorities, and legal protections for illegal immigrants.

“Sanctuary jurisdictions including cities, counties, and states that are deliberately and shamefully obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws endanger American communities,” the DHS statement read.

This move by the DHS comes amid increased pressure from the Trump administration on local governments to align with federal immigration law enforcement. While law enforcement in Republican governed states are increasingly complying with President Donald J. Trump’s mass deportation efforts, Democrat-controlled states continue to by-and-large resist immigration enforcement efforts.

The DHS claims that sanctuary policies allow individuals accused of criminal activity to avoid facing legal consequences, putting public safety at risk. Critics of sanctuary policies argue that they undermine the rule of law and prioritize the protection of illegal immigrants over the safety of citizens.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
May 29, 2025
William Upton
Politics

Trump Replacing DEI With ‘Merit-Based’ Hiring.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: The Trump administration is rolling out its Merit Hiring Plan for federal agencies, releasing new guidance on Thursday that replaces decades of DEI-style polices with one that focuses on applicants’ skills rather than their race or gender.

👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), federal agencies, federal hiring managers, and federal job applicants.

📍 Where & When: The policy was released on Thursday through guidance issued to agencies across the federal government.

⚠️ Impact: President Trump’s Merit Hiring Plan marks a significant shift in federal employment practices that will now focus on bringing high-skilled individuals for critical roles. The plan also ends race and gender based hiring practices that critics contend created discriminatory political constituencies inside the government workforce.

IN FULL:

President Donald J. Trump‘s administration is set to unveil a new federal employment policy focused on merit-based hiring instead of the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) requirements that have dominated government employment for decades. The new hiring guidance, released to federal agencies on Thursday by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), is believed to bar the consideration of race and gender in employment decisions.

Based on legislation adopted last year in Congress, and ushered through by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, the Merit Hiring Plan provides guidance for federal hiring and instructs agencies to consider relevant skills beyond just resume experience. Notably, this provision has long been pushed by conservative education activists and technology industry figures who contend that college education requirements lock out too many qualified individuals from the professional workforce.

Skill-based hiring evaluations will be made through interviews and relevant testing of applicants, though resumes and professional experience will still be considered determining factors in hiring decisions.

Additionally, federal agencies are being directed to continue collecting workforce demographic data. However, this data will no longer be released publicly and will merely be retained by the federal government to ensure its policies promote a workforce with diverse skills and professional qualifications.

Another significant change comes through guidance meant to speed up federal hiring processes. Federal interviewers will now ask applicants a more standardized set of questions rather than the previous more ad-hoc process. This is aimed at ensuring federal hirings take no longer than 80 days.

Once implemented, the federal government is expected to begin a more modest hiring period to restaff certain agencies. After being inaugurated in January, President Trump and his White House dismissed upwards of 140,000 federal workers through force reduction or employment buyouts. The Trump administration has indicated it could soon move forward with the dismissal of another 150,000 federal employees, while also bringing in new individuals to fill critical roles.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more